How can the presumption of doli incapax be rebutted for children aged 7 to 14?

The presumption of doli incapax refers to the incapacity of children under a certain age to commit a crime due to their inability to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. In the context of children aged 7 to 14, this presumption can indeed be rebutted by demonstrating that the child has the capability to understand right from wrong.

The rationale behind this is that if it can be established that a child possesses the cognitive ability to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, then the presumption of doli incapax may not apply. This capability is often assessed through various means such as testimony, behavioral evidence, and other contextual factors that illustrate the child's awareness of the social norms and moral implications of their actions.

In contrast, the other options do not sufficiently address the legal principle at hand. For example, proving adult supervision does not inherently indicate the child's understanding of right and wrong; it merely suggests that the child was under the watch of an adult. Similarly, previous offenses do not automatically demonstrate a child's ability to comprehend moral distinctions. Psychological evaluations can provide insights into a child's cognitive and emotional development, but they do not directly relate to the fundamental legal question of whether the child understood their actions—thus, they may not be decisive in rebut